Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A new fixpoint semantics for general logic programs compared with the well-founded and the stable model semantics

  • Special Issue
  • Published:
New Generation Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We study a new fixpoint semantics for logic programs with negation. Our construction is intermediate between Van Gelder’s well-founded model and Gelfond and Lifschitz’s stable model semantics. We show first that the stable models of a logic programP are exactly the well-supported models ofP, i.e. the supported models with loop-free finite justifications. Then we associate to any logic programP a non-monotonic operator over the semilattice of justified interpretations, and we define in an abstract form its ordinal powers. We show that the fixpoints of this operator are the stable models ofP, and that its ordinal powers after some ordinala are extensions of the well-founded partial model ofP. In particular ifP has a well-founded model then that canonical model is also an ordinal power and the unique fixpoint of our operator. We show with examples of logic programs which have a unique stable model but no well-founded model that the converse is false. We relate also our work to Doyle’s truth maintenance system and some implementations of rule-based expert systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Apt, K. R., Blair, H. A. and Walker, A., “Towards a Theory of Declarative Knowledge,” inFoundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, (J. Minker, ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Apt, K. R. and Van Emden, M. H., “Contributions to the Theory of Logic Programming,”JACM, 29, 3, pp. 841–862, 1982.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Batarekh, A., “Fixpoint Techniques for Non-Monotone Maps,”Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Algebraic and Logic Programming, Nancy, 1990.

  4. Brough, D. R., Walker, A., “Some Practical Properties of Logic Programming Interpreters,”Proc. of FGCS’84, Tokyo, 1984.

  5. Clark, K. L., “Negation as Failure,” inLogic and Databases (H. Gallaire and J. Minker, eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 293–322, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cavedon, L. and Lloyd, J. W., “A Completeness Theorem for SLDNF-Resolution,”Journal of Logic Programming, 7, 3, pp. 177–192, 1989.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis, M., “The Mathematics of Non-Monotonic Reasoning,”Artificial Intelligence, 13, pp. 73–80, 1980.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. de Kleer, J., “An Assumption-Based Truth Maintenance System,”Artificial Intelligence, 28, 2, pp. 127–162, 1986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Doyle, J., “A Truth Maintenance System,”Artificial Intelligence, 12, pp. 231–272, 1979

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Dung, P. M. and Kanchanasut, K., “A Fixpoint Approach to Declarative Semantics of Logic Programs,”NACLP’89, MIT Press, 1989.

  11. Eshghi, K. and Kowalski, R. A., Abduction Compared with Negation by Failure,6th Intern. Conference on Logic Programming, Lisbonne, 1989.

  12. Elkan, C., “A Rational Reconstruction of Nonmonotonic Truth Maintenance Systems,”Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 43, pp. 219–234, 1990.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Fages, F., “Consistency of Clark’s Completion and Existence of Stable Models,”Workshop on non-monotonic reasoning and logic programming, NACLP’90, Austin, Research Report, 90-15, LIENS, Ecole Normale Superieure, 1990. To apper in methods of Logic in Computer Science.

  14. Fages, F., “On the Proceduralization of Rules in Expert Systems,” inProgramming of Future Generation Computers (M. Nivat and K. Fuchi, eds.), North-Holland, 1988.

  15. Fitting, M.R., “A Kripke-Kleene semantics for Logic Programs,”Journal of Logic Programming, 2, pp. 295–312, 1985.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Forgy, C. L.,OPS5 Users Manual, Dept. of Cognitive Sciences, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Forgy, C., “Rete: A Fast Algorithm for the Many Pattern-Many Object Pattern Match Problem,”Artificial Intelligence, 19, pp. 17–37, 1982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V., “The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming,”Proc. of the 5th Logic Programming Symposium, pp. 1070–1080, MIT press, 1988.

  19. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V., “Logic Programs with Classical Negation,”Proc. of the 7th Logic Programming Symposium, pp. 579–597, MIT press, 1990.

  20. Guessarian, I., “Some Fixpoint Techniques in Algebraic Structures and Applications to Computer Science,”Fundamentica Informatica, X, pp. 387–414, 1987.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Kunen, K., “Signed Data Dependencies in Logic Programs,”Journal of Logic Programming, 7, 3, pp. 231–245, 1989.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Kunen, K., “Negation in Logic Programming,”Journal of Logic Programming, 4, 4, pp. 289–308, 1987.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Lloyd, J. W.,Foundations of Logic Programming, Springer-Verlag, 1987.

  24. Lassez, J. L., Nguyen, V. L. and Sonenberg, E. A., “Fixed Point Theorems and Semantics: A Folk Tale,”Information Processing Letters, 14, 3, pp. 112–116, 1982.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. McCarthy, J., “Circumscription: A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning,”Artificial Intelligence, 13, pp. 27–39, 1980.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Moore, R. C., “Semantic Considerations on Non-Monotonic Logic,”Artificial Intelligence, 25, pp. 75–94, 1985.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Marek, W. and Truszcynski, M., “Stable Semantics for Logic Programs and Default Theories,”NACLP’89, MIT Press, 1989.

  28. Przymusinski, T., “On the Declarative and Procedural Semantics of Logic Programs,”Journal of Automated Reasoning, 5, pp. 167–205, 1989.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Przymusinski, T., “Non-Monotonic Formalisms and Logic Programming,”Intern. Conference on Logic Programming, Lisbonne, 1989.

  30. Przymusinski, T., “On the Declarative Semantics of Stratified Deductive Databases and Logic Programming,” inFoundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (J. Minker, ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ramakrishnan, R., “Magic Templates: A Spellbinding Approach to Logic Programming,”Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming, Seattle, 1988.

  32. Reiter, R., “A Logic for Default Reasoning,”Artificial Intelligence, 13, pp. 81–132, 1980.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Schlipf, J. S., “The Expressive Powers of the Logic Programming Semantics,”Proc. of PODS’90, pp. 196–204, 1990.

  34. Shepherdson, J. C., “A Sound and Complete Semantics for a Version of Negation as Failure,”Journal of Theoretical Computer Science, 65, pp. 343–371, 1989.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Sacca, D. and Zaniolo, C., “Stable Models and Non-Determinism in Logic Programs with Negation,”PODS’90, pp. 205–217, 1990.

  36. Tamaki, H. and Sato, T., “OLD-Resolution with Tabulation,”Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, pp. 84–98, London, 1986.

  37. Van Emden, M. H. and Kowalski, R. H., “The Semantics of Predicate Logique as a Programming Language,”JACM, 23, 4, pp. 733–742, 1976.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Van Gelder, A., “Negation as Failure Using Tight Derivations for General Logic Programs,” inFoundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (J. Minker, ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1987. Revised version inJournal of Logic Programming, pp. 109–133, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Van Gelder, A., Ross, K. and Schlipf, J. S., “Unfounded Sets and Well-Founded Semantics for General Logic Programs,”Proc. of the Symp. on Principles of Databases Systems, ACM-SIGACT-SIGCOM, 1988.

  40. Warren, D. S., “The XWAM: A Machine That Integrates Prolog and Deductive Database Query Evaluation,”Technical Report, 89/25, Suny at Stony Brook, NY, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ecole Normale Supérieure, LCR Thomson-CSF and LIENS, URA CNRS, 45 rue d’Ulm, 75005, Paris, France

    François Fages

Authors
  1. François Fages
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Fages, F. A new fixpoint semantics for general logic programs compared with the well-founded and the stable model semantics. New Gener Comput 9, 425–443 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037172

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037172

Keywords

Search

Navigation